Would we nuke the middle east?

On another thread the subject came up about OBL using a nuke on the USA.

I think that woulds be the WORST thing that ever happened to the Muslim world because that would just give our leaders a reason to take off the gloves and responed in kind.

In other words I think we would nuke the crap out of the middle east and TAKE the Oil fields.

And I donmt think there would be a peep out of the UN.

What do yall think?

There's too much money invested over there. (perhaps the reason for the war)

So while all the poor people in America would be chanting "NUKE EM"

The rich (who are in control) would say, "No."

Money trumps everything.

Now, if you think the US would nuke 'em, YOU are sadly mistaken.

wouldnt we make MORE money rebuilding their nuked cities and TAKING the oil fields? If a leader DIDNT nuke them he would be drug out of the white house and hanged.

BET

Let your "heros" nuke us and you will see

So Americans would resort to the level of Osama bin Laden?

I guess we will see.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by cstyle226]

It's very possible we would nuke the Middle East if we needed too.

A country is nuked, they surrender. We offer them loans to help rebuild. Then we get them to use US countries to rebuild while they pay with our loans. We get the money back and they are still in debt.

See everyone is happy. Except for that country that is, but hey, what are they going to do about?

Well I am not going to get to silly here, but I believe that if it comes to the point that our administration sees not way around the problem in Iraq, I think our president in his already bad judgement trail probably will do it and them will hide behing the "God told me is was the right thing to do"

If Nuked? In a heartbeat.

I will go on record as predicting that within 1 hour of a terrorist attack with a nuke MOST of the middle east will glow.

What country? There is no country.

Osama is a rogue who has citizenship to nowhere.

What Amuk is suggesting is not nuking A country...

He's saying Osama would nuke the US, and then the US would nuke every middle eastern country in retaliation.

Wait untill the west has sucked up all the Oil over there and then consider nuking them. Seems logical :\

And I will go on the record COMPLETELY DOUBTING THAT.

At best, the President would be blamed for doing a bad job, and replaced with a libertarian who seeks to remove our troops from foreign lands.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by cstyle226]

I seriously doubt we would Nuke the M.E.. Too much fallout with other countries, and would lead to Global Nuclear War. They might Level it in other ways, but nothing in the Nuke supply..

I think it would only happen if some weapon of the same type was used on the US. Then they would get a return in spades.

Am I the only one looking past the 1st nuke sent there?

Who will jump then?
Who, with capablility, will take the opportune to send them here?
Then who jumps after that one?
You see where I am going.

Misfit

You really dont understand the American people do you? What you see now going on over there is NOTHING compared to what would happen

We would Nuke EVERY country in the Middle east that we thought was involved in ANYWAY with the bombing In other words ANY country we thought had ties with the terrorists.

I am a Libertarian and it WOULD NOT HAPPEN, In a case like this I would vote to nuke them.

If the President didnt do it he would be lynched.

I have to agree with cstyle226

In the War on Terror you are not fighting a country, you are fighting an idea so there is no-where to bomb.

When the dirty bombs go off the finger will point directly to the White House for getting sidetracked with Iraq instead of focussing on the main objective, which used to be bringing OBL to justice and eradicating Al qaeda and other terrorist networks.

The UN would not lift a finger IF WE WERE NUKED FIRST. Do you think we would respond if russia was nuked and returned the favor? Not a chance

It would take more than 1 hour to withdraw all the troops out of the Middle East before the nuclear response option was taken. Unless you're suggesting the administration is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of it's own troops. To do something like that, the consequences would require withdrawing the rest of the troops from places like Korea and Europe in order to shore up defense at home. It would take months to withdraw all the troops from the Middle East before exercising the nuclear response option, and that would be plenty of time for the terrorists to escape to some other part of the world, thus making it useless. Nope, as much as I hate to admit it, nuking the Middle East is just not an option at this point.

You know what. An all out global nuclear war would be the best damn thing that happened for the people of the future. They at least would be able start a world that would be united. Start anew. After a long period of time when mutants aren't being born and sickness from the bombs resides. A world not based on power and greed. And if it comes back to that then we are what we are forever doomed to a life that ends in death.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by I See You]

Why would they Nuke Bagdad? We already own it. I am talking more about Iran and Syria. The troops in Iraqi would just be the staging point to invade the other countries. Like I said it would be JUST the excuse the powers that be need to take off the gloves

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Amuk]

Let's just destroy the human race and get this thing over with already, shall we?